Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Mar 2010

Electoral System Review: Discussion with Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform.

Are the minutes of the meeting of 3 March 2010 agreed? Agreed.

We will now move on to our main business, which is a review of the electoral system. I understand the Whips are currently having a meeting at which certain matters are being urgently discussed; they should be along presently. Our guest is Deputy David Stanton, who is the Fine Gael representative on the Oireachtas Committee on Procedure and Privileges, Sub-committee on Dáil Reform. He has agreed to make a short presentation to the committee. I welcome all members and particularly Deputy Stanton to the meeting.

We are currently undertaking a review of the system for election of Members of Dáil Éireann. In an earlier phase of our review we considered the constituency role of TDs. In our meeting today with members of the sub-committee on Dáil reform, we will consider the parliamentary role of TDs and the institutional framework in which they operate. One of the observations emerging from our review to date is the extent to which the role and workings of our Parliament are influenced and shaped by our electoral system. Some of the questions we will address in today's session include the following: Would changing to a different electoral system achieve desired changes to our parliamentary arrangements? How should our parliamentary arrangements and activities be organised for the modern age? How can we ensure an equal balance between the Legislature and the Executive? What changes are needed to the way legislation is processed? Are reforms needed to enhance the role and impact of backbench Members of the Dáil? How can Private Members' time have a greater impact within Parliament? How can our Parliament better connect with the people it represents? I welcome Deputy David Stanton and I call on him to provide his presentation.

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to speak today. I have been following the work of the committee. I am impressed and I congratulate the committee on the work it is doing which is very useful and valuable. It appears that changing the electoral system and deciding on a different way of sending members to Dáil Éireann is the matter at issue. Part of the hypothesis I put before the committee is that it would not make much difference if one changed the way of sending people here unless we also change what Deputies do when they get here, the way in which the House and committees operate and the relationship between the Executive and the Legislature in particular.

I refer to some ideas about how this could be done. I contend that we should consider changing the way the Dáil and the Houses do their business first and consider the electoral system afterwards. Changing the electoral system would require a constitutional amendment, which is a substantial job involving a very substantial amount of work. It would require major changes which should not be undertaken lightly. However, changing the way the Houses operate and their procedures is not as final and, in the main, would not require any constitutional amendments. This approach could perhaps make the Houses far more responsive and efficient and achieve what the committee is seeking to achieve in a better way.

In the opening statement reference was made to the need for a viable parliamentary democracy and that the current system results in relentless competition and diverts attention from parliamentary duties because of the constant preoccupation with constituency issues. I was not long in the House when a senior Member approached me and suggested I was making too many speeches in the Chamber and that I should go to funerals and so on. He maintained there were no votes to be won in the Chamber. Deputies must get re-elected because if one is not re-elected one cannot continue to work. We must concentrate on the constituency and part of the issue is the balance between the two. This is probably the committee's approach to the matter as well. The introduction also referred to the perception that Deputies should be released from the multi-seat constituencies. I agree with this and I believe the alternative vote system is the way to proceed.

Yesterday, I was taken by the remarks of the Ombudsman which are relevant to today's discussion. She stated that many commentators, including Oireachtas Members, are asking whether the Oireachtas is fit for purpose. She quoted the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, who stated that we should return Dáil Éireann to a central place in public thinking, that it should be the battleground for ideas and the location for intellectual debate where the brightest and best should work in concert to achieve optimal results over the long term rather than engage in cheap point scoring in the short term. The Minister was referring to changing how we operate in the House. The Ombudsman further suggested the model of Government is posited on notions of checks and balances and accountability and, above all, that it was the function of Parliament to act as a check on the Government and to ensure it is held to account and not allowed to act in an arbitrary fashion.

The Ombudsman quoted the Constitution in this regard. I realise this is a constitutional review group and far be it for me to discuss the Constitution among such experts, but Article 28.4.1° states that the Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann. It does not state that the Government shall control Dáil Éireann. I contend this is what is taking place in practice. The Executive controls the Legislature completely, totally and utterly. It decides what is debated when it is debated and, dare I say, how it is debated. This is recognised among those on the Opposition benches but when people get into Government they change and they do not wish to change the system in any way.

The Ombudsman also referred to the dangers inherent in accepting that Parliament is, for the greater part, a charade and that parliamentarians have in many cases lost the sense of Parliament as an independent entity acting in the public interest.

Who was this?

This what the Ombudsman said in her speech yesterday. She further remarked that while few acknowledge it openly, senior civil servants working with Ministers who sit in on the Oireachtas debates are likely, in many circumstances, to become profoundly cynical. Either that or they too have lost a sense that a properly functioning parliament is fundamental to a proper functioning democracy. The Ombudsman also referred to the relationship between the Oireachtas and the Executive, suggesting it should be thought out new and afresh in the wider context of constitutional reform. She referenced an argument put forward nine years ago by the current Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and suggested that, in the intervening nine years, the scale of the problem has increased rather than decreased. According to the Ombudsman, the situation is now so serious that it cannot be ignored and it seemed to her that a proper functioning Parliament is even more necessary at times like these when, in effect, we have a national emergency on our hands. I agree wholeheartedly with the Ombudsman. Changing the way we send Deputies to the House without changing how the House transacts business will not make any difference. If the Legislature continues to remain virtually powerless then the way in which one sends Deputies to it does not matter.

I refer to setting the agenda. Among 18 European countries, Ireland and the United Kingdom stand alone in that the Governments alone determine the plenary agenda. There is a continuum in this regard. For example, in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Norway and Spain, consensual agreement of party groups is sought through a presidential conference in respect of the agenda. In Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden, the president's decisions, following consultation with party groups, cannot be challenged by the chamber. In the Netherlands, the chamber determines the agenda but in Ireland the Government alone determines the agenda. We stand alone with the UK in this regard, which is a serious matter.

I refer to the legislative process. If we reform the House and the way we work here, perhaps the constitutional reform this committee is examining may not be necessary. I believe it is secondary to reforming business in the House.

The role of committees in many countries is paramount. However, in Ireland the plenary meeting decides on the principles before Committee Stage and this leaves little room for substantial change. Ireland, Spain and the UK stand alone in this regard. The principles of legislation are decided in plenary session whereas in a list of other countries in Europe, including Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland, Committee Stage is taken before consideration in plenary session presents a final solution. Draft heads of Bills come before committees and the committees discuss and debate the principles. Only then does the legislation go to plenary session. The mechanism in Denmark is somewhere in between in this regard but almost all other countries in Europe work differently to us.

I recall the Chairman was, previously, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights when it discussed the Disability Act. The committee invited in up to 50 groups to make presentations on the draft Bill. This process informed those who were drafting the Bill and it was very useful for Members when the Bill was introduced to the House and returned on Committee Stage afterwards. The same process applied with the EPSEN Act. This is something we could do quite easily which would involve groups from civil society and others in the process of legislating before any legislation is copper-fastened and becomes politicised in the main chamber.

I am a member of the Dáil reform committee and for some time it has been pushing the idea of changing procedures in the House. The Dáil Chamber has become a place where people read scripts to each other. We are all familiar with the Adjournment debate. A Member puts forward his or her issue and it is selected. The Member then goes into the Chamber and makes a five minute speech. A Minister, usually a Minister of State who, very often, is not involved with the Department concerned, arrives into the Chamber and reads out a pre-prepared script. It should not be called a debate; that is a misnomer. The script has been pre-prepared and the comments of the Member have been anticipated. On occasion, the issue which the Member has raised is not addressed in the answer. There is no way in which to have any interaction or debate on the issue.

I have examined what happens during adjournment debates in the United Kingdom. It has a proper question and answer system. At times, ministers have invited members of the opposition to participate. For example, a Minister in the Chamber could ask if Deputy O'Keeffe has a question. It happens in other Parliaments. In the Dáil if one intervenes and tries to ask a question, such as the procedure for a Second Stage debate on which one can interrupt and ask a question, it is almost taken as a personal insult. It is confrontational. One might be seeking to highlight an issue.

Standing Orders rule out reading speeches from scripts, but the rule is rarely enforced in the Dáil. Members speak to an empty House which gives a very bad impression. As a result of the speakers' list, Members arrive in the Chamber five minutes before they are due to speak, something we have all done, read out a script and walk out again. Nobody listens to anybody else. There was a strike recently and there was no list. Everybody had to be in the Chamber and speakers were selected at random by the Chair as they indicated they wanted to speak. It worked extraordinarily well. Everybody listened to each other and there was proper interaction. That is a simple change which we could make tomorrow. There are simple procedural changes which we could make.

There could be a strike everyday

Not every day, no. On the Adjournment debate, it was proposed that we should have a commencement debate in the morning before business begins at, for example, 9.30 a.m., and have a facility for taking supplementary questions. Why not? It would also ensure that the Minister with responsibility for an issue would have to appear. We would get a proper debate. It is a simple matter. I understand it happens in the Seanad but not in the Dáil. We might as well not go into the Dáil at all and just send e-mails to each other because it is the same thing. It would cut down on costs. I could e-mail my presentation to a Minister and he or she could e-mail back his or her pre-prepared response, and we could shut the place an hour earlier in order to save money. This area needs to be examined.

I have been pushing the issue of Dáil reform in the Chamber for a long time. Last week the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, in response to a point I made said he wants a big package of reform. We have been looking at that for 25 or 30 years but it has not happened. I put forward the idea that we do it incrementally. Let us take small steps and do one thing at a time, such as bedding down the proposal for a commencement debate, and move on from there. I understand the European Parliament has the 30-second question procedure. MEPs arrive in the morning and can ask anything for 30 seconds. The Minister of the day then responds to the questions for 30 seconds. It is a quick-fire debate, back and forth.

Deputies arrive in Dáil Éireann every day with topical issues they want to raise, but they cannot do so because only the Leaders can ask questions on Leaders' Questions. An ordinary backbencher cannot. What does one do if something has happened in one's area or the country about which one feels passionate and wants to raise immediately? One cannot ask questions. In other Parliaments one can attend and make a point.

Standing Order 32 is to be used for national emergencies. In my 13 years here it has only been agreed to twice. Members say they want to raise a matter of urgent national importance under Standing Order 32, such as there was a mouse in the house last night or whatever. I do not want to be flippant, but they are trying to raise issues about which they are passionate because there is no other way to do so. I suggest we change the system and allow Members to raise issues in the morning. Why not? If the Taoiseach does not have the answer there and then he can tell the Member he will get back to him or her later in the day. That is all people want, namely, that an acknowledgement that there is an issue and it will be examined. Surely that is what people are sending us here for. It is something which could be done easily and quickly. We could change Standing Order 32 in order to provide a written response with five signatures and only use it for emergencies.

The subject of the legislative programme and promised legislation could be addressed once a week by the Chief Whip or the Taoiseach. The system has to be changed. People are trying to weave constituency matters into it illegally and it is leading to procedural rows in the Chamber, which are demeaning and do not do us justice. People want to raise issues, but it lowers the tone and wastes a lot of valuable time.

Question Time needs to be changed. Oral questions are tabled every day, but in practice only four or five are answered in the House. We could do a lot of work in that area. We could speed it up, reduce the number of priorities or insist that the question will only be answered if the Member who tabled it is in the Chamber.

We could get things moving very quickly. The Chairman referred to the role of backbench Members. In other Parliaments it is possible for backbenchers to introduce legislation or an idea for legislation. In Britain there is the ten-minute Bill, whereby one can make a speech proposing a change in the law. One cannot do so here.

There are many things we could do immediately. One major issue is that we have set up many bodies for which Ministers are not responsible to the Dáil, such as the HSE, the NRA, the Railway Procurement Agency, the Road Safety Authority and so on. There are hundreds of them. We find more and more power has been devolved from the Dáil. It is very frustrating when one tables a question and it does not reach the Minister, rather, one gets a response which states the Minister is not responsible for the matter. The citizens elect us to hold Ministers and agencies to account but we cannot do so because of the way things have evolved. I suggest all the quangos should be under the remit of parliamentary questions. A Minister should say a Member asked a question about an agency for which he or she is not responsible for the day-to-day operation but he or she asked for the information and will provide it to the Member. That should be the case.

These agencies are all getting Government money. More and more, issues are occurring in FÁS, the HSE and so on. All kinds of things are going on but we cannot get a handle on them, hold them to account or question them through the parliamentary question system, which should be the most effective system. We should change the system immediately.

During recesses, a limited number of parliamentary questions should be allowed because when constituents visit Deputies during a recess the Deputies tell constituents they are powerless until the Dáil resumes and so cannot help them. Each Deputy should be allowed to ask a small number of written parliamentary questions per week. Questions to the Taoiseach needs to be changed. Today he dealt with the Copenhagen summit, which took place a number of months ago. It is out of date.

We have made a number of proposals to the committee on Dáil reform. There are many more, such as the election of the Chair and the power of the Ceann Comhairle. When a Deputy tables a parliamentary question and sometimes the question is not even addressed in the reply, one has no right of appeal. There should be a right of appeal whereby if one is not happy with the response, somebody adjudicates and the Minister must come into the House that evening and give a proper response. That should happen as well.

I commenced my presentation by saying that yesterday the Ombudsman put forward a very serious critique of the way this House operates and the balance between the Legislature and the Executive. Under the Constitution the Government is answerable to the Dáil, it does not control the Dáil but is responsible to Dáil Éireann.

Article 27, which I understand has never been invoked, provides for the referral of Bills to the people. Article 27.1 states:

A majority of the members of Seanad Éireann and not less than one-third of the members of Dáil Éireann may by a joint petition addressed to the President by them under this Article request the President to decline to sign and promulgate as a law any Bill to which this article applies on the ground that the Bill contains a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained.

It would be impossible to make that happen under the present system because the Executive controls the Dáil and Seanad. Therefore, if the Executive did not want this to happen it would not happen. The NAMA legislation which was enacted recently is of huge national importance. Perhaps those who compiled the Constitution had something like that in mind when they said if it was "of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained". That could not happen under our present Constitution. I contend, Chairman, that before you start looking at the way you send Deputies in here, we should change the way we do our business in the House. This was done in Canada.

In 2003 the Canadian Parliament had a report prepared under its Library of Parliament. It deliberations did not continue indefinitely. In a number of months it had a report and it started to implement the changes straightaway. We could do the same. If those changes were implemented and bedded down we could then see how the electoral system impacts and whether something should be done to make a change. Many of us spend time in committee. I spoke to a former senior Member, a national figure, not so long ago who lost his seat in an election. I asked what happened to him. He said he did not cut the briars and he did not fill the potholes but concentrated on national and international legislation issues. If we concentrate on legislation, as we should, and neglect the briars and the potholes we will not be re-elected.

A delegation from RTE appeared before the Members' interests committee recently when we put these points. They said that script reading in the Chamber and the way we go about our business is a turn off and that they were not interested in putting it on air because people would not look at it. There is no interaction and no real debate. As the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey, said, there is no discussion of ideas in the Chamber. This is an extremely serious issue and we could do much with the goodwill of all sides.

The Government established a working group on Dáil reform. On 23 February I asked how many times it met and was informed it had met five times, the last being on 1 July 2009. We are still awaiting proposals from the Government side on Dáil reform. It would be great if we did have such proposals because we could then interact and engage and, perhaps, agree certain issues. My contention is to forget about the big package as I do not think it will work; let us do it incrementally, one step at a time.

While I thank Deputy Stanton for his presentation I do not know whether it was on behalf of the Fine Gael Party or if it was Deputy Stanton's ideas.

I like to see it as a work in progress. I have discussed it with members of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party and I have, more or less, got agreement from them on the points I have put forward. I acknowledge that all this is a work in progress and there has to be give and take. I look forward to hopefully, at some stage, having proper engagement on it.

I welcome the Chief Whip, Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey, for attending the meeting today. I understand he had important urgent business to attend to. Deputy Stanton kindly continued to make a presentation in the absence of other members. Perhaps I can try to encapsulate his comments. The context is electoral reform and how that might affect the work and the business of the House and the business of the committees. Deputy Stanton has stated that the changes in the House and how the House operates could come about without any constitutional amendment and, therefore, could be made before any change in the way that people are elected to the House. The Government controls the Legislature rather than as provided for in Article 28 of the Constitution, where the Government is responsible to the Legislature.

On the issue of Dáil reform, the whole question of the reading of scripts is against Standing Orders but it is done. It is boring, people to do not listen to what is being said and the television audience is turned off by it.

The whole question of the Adjournment debates and the possibility of commencement debates should be reformed so that there is greater interaction in order that supplementary questions can be asked. Instead of seeking to raise matters under Standing Order 32, there should be 30-second questions and responses from Ministers. If the Ministers do not have the response they can get it later in the day. The Order of Business is being abused and would probably be better done on a once-a-week basis by the Chief Whip.

In regard to Question Time, too few questions are responded to. By speeding up the process, more questions could be asked. Bodies such as the HSE, NRA and similar bodies are not responsible directly to the Minister. We receive answers to questions stating that the Minister is not directly responsible and that it has been passed on to the relevant body, but it would be better if there were more immediate replies. When the Dáil is in recess, perhaps a small number of parliamentary questions per week per member should be allowed. On the issue of questions, where Members feel that the reply does not address the issue, there should be some right of appeal and that could be brought up at some stage in the House. The question of discussion of ideas in the House of debate is missing.

Deputy Stanton is awaiting some recommendations from the Government on Dáil reform. He has discussed his remarks with his parliamentary colleagues in the Fine Gael Party and they do not disagree with him.

As the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, is aware, we are reviewing the electoral system for the election of members of the Dáil. Earlier we looked at the question of the constituency role of Deputies. Today we are looking at the legislative role of Deputies, how Parliament is working and how people can work in Parliament. It is in that context that we have invited the representatives and the members of the Dáil reform committee to make a presentation if they wish and respond to some of the queries the members might raise.

I thank the Chairman. I want to apologise sincerely for not being here earlier. It is apposite that the committee is meeting following what must have been one of the longest Orders of Business in the time I have been a Member of the Dáil.

Deputy Stanton and I are fairly close in our views of what must be done to reform the procedures of the Dáil and make the Dáil more efficient. That is not in any way to turn it into a clinical establishment but there is concern about that across all parties, and I followed the committee's own debate. It is timely and necessary that fairly significant change is brought about to the way Parliament conducts its business and the broader question of electoral reform.

The programme for Government contains a commitment about the establishment of an electoral commission, and I believe that many of the issues the committee has been addressing will be taken on board by that commission.

The immediate job we have been tasked with, as a sub-committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, which consists of Deputy David Stanton and myself, Deputy Emmet Stagg, Deputy Ciarán Cuffe and Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh, along with the Clerk of the Dáil, and is serviced by staff, is to bring forward proposals that would meet all-party agreement on the issue of making the Dáil more relevant, efficient, citizen friendly and user friendly.

To that end, last year the Government appointed a sub-committee of members which included the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, Senator Dan Boyle and myself to try to bring forward some proposals on which there might be broad agreement. Many of those I hear the members talk about, including those Deputy Stanton referred to, are among those we believe would be appropriate.

The Dáil is already sitting longer than it ever sat in the past. I do not have the figures to hand but it is in the public domain that for the past few years the Dáil has sat a greater number of days, and indeed for longer hours. Faults and all, I would say the Dáil has been proactive in dealing with urgent issues of the day, whether that be the X-ray issue in Tallaght hospital that arose this morning or the "TF" case last week. Numerous issues like that have been dealt with by the Dáil in a timely manner.

Other fundamental issues affect the efficient operation of the Dáil and they include ones as simple as the time of the day the Dáil starts its business, for example. There is general consensus that we could use our time more usefully if the Dáil started its business an hour or two earlier each day. There has been some discussion on the possibility of sitting on a Friday but there does not seem to be much appetite for that. There is a significant degree of consensus on the idea of an early starting time on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, namely, 12.30 p.m. or 1 o'clock on Tuesday and 9.30 a.m. on Wednesdays and Thursdays.

The Adjournment Debate matters, which are taken at the end of the day's business and have been part of Dáil business for as I have been a Member, ought to be brought forward to an earlier time. We are approaching agreement that the Adjournment Debate would be taken as the first item of business of the day and that a facility be provided, as is the case in the Seanad, to allow Members to ask a supplementary question or questions of the Minister involved. There is also a wish that the relevant Minister or Minister of State would take the Adjournment debate matters because for many reasons there is a tendency for the Minister who is on at the end of a day to take the four Adjournment debate matters, and often it is a question of reading out a script. That is one practical change, and there are some members in the committee who believe that if we did nothing else other than introduce that it might be worthwhile.

I must tell the members that every time any of us comes up with an idea, somebody believes there is a reason we should not do it. Sometimes it is down to traditional practices around the House, that the House might not be open, that we would need to have additional staff or that it would affect staff rosters and so on. Those are issues that could be overcome if the will was there.

Issues arise such as the timeliness of Taoiseach's questions. For example, the second bundle of Taoiseach's questions this morning were to do with the climate change conference in Copenhagen, which took place last October-November. One would hardly regard that as being a Parliament addressing immediate issues. I accept other issues arise during Taoiseach's questions that are relevant but that is an example of what tends to come up that is not relevant.

There is a measure of consensus on the possibility of having Taoiseach's questions reduced to possibly one day per week. Obviously, there would be a trade-off for that in other areas of the business. Also, as is the case with questions to Ministers, questions not reached might be answered in written form and that there would be a more timely roll-over of the questions in that regard.

There is no doubt that the issue of Leaders' Questions has brought a great deal of relevance to the work of the Dáil but there is a sense, certainly on the Government side, that the original Standing Order is now more observed in the breach than in the observance. The time allocated to Leaders' Questions tends to extend, and perhaps there is good reason for that. For example, this morning Leaders' Questions were taken from 10.30 until 11.10 p.m.; they are meant to conclude after about 14 minutes. We must examine that.

It is fair that there is a discussion in the sub-committee about how to address Thursday morning's business. At present, we have Leaders' Questions on Tuesday and Wednesday but not on Thursday. Some of my colleagues on the sub-committee are anxious to explore the possibility of finding another mechanism to address significant topical issues in a quasi-Leaders' Questions style on a Thursday morning. I cannot say with any great degree of confidence that there would be cross-party agreement on that. There is no point in me saying otherwise.

Would that include a Minister who has responsibilities for——

Yes, without expressing another party's point of view. Some parties would be happy with the possibility of a senior Minister being present and dealing with it in that way.

We then come to the Order of Business.

Deputy Stanton has addressed fairly comprehensively our thinking on the Order of Business. It can be broken into a number of parts, one being the ordering of the business of the day, which can be dealt with fairly quickly with perhaps one question being taken from a Member, not necessarily a party leader but a member of the Opposition, to be addressed to the Taoiseach or whoever is taking the Order of Business. The programme of legislation — in effect, an update on legislation — would be dealt with probably once a week by the party Whip. Much more work can be and probably needs to be done on this issue.

An interesting proposal has been put forward, for which I credit Deputy Stanton for his approach to it. Standing Order 32 is a vehicle Members increasingly use to address a local and topical issue. The Canadian Parliament is a model we have considered in terms of selecting a number of Members, who would be drawn by lottery each morning, to contribute to what I would call — I am aware that this will appear in the transcript exactly as I say this — a Larry Gogan type quiz with, say, 30 seconds being provided for the taking of a number of short questions. A question would be addressed, through the Chair, to a Minister on an issue and a short reply would be given, possibly followed up later by a more comprehensive reply. That is an element that can be explored.

I interrupt to advise that I have to leave to attend a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Those issues are the fairly simple proposals that would probably receive broad agreement. If Deputy Stanton wants to intervene at any stage, he should feel free to do so because I am not sure of other proposals he might have.

The only other one I mentioned earlier was that legislation should come before committees prior to going to the Dáil. In that way the principles of legislation would be discussed before it is finalised and becomes politicised, as it is does in the Dáil Chamber, where it is decided and then there is no room for manoeuvre. This would provide an opportunity for individuals, groups and others to have an input into it, as should be the case, before it becomes law and goes to the Dáil Chamber for proper debate. It would also cut down on the time that would be required for debate on legislation in the Dáil Chamber because much of the legislation could be considered in Committee prior to it going to the Dáil.

I mentioned that earlier because I also thought that was a very good idea.

I heard the Chairman mention a matter about which Deputy Stanton spoke.

With regard to scripts, apart from the Minister and, possibly, the lead spokespersons on a subject, I strongly hold the view that scripts should be disposed of. Much shorter and snappier interventions would make for more interesting and productive debate and there would be more toing and froing in terms of exchanges during a debate.

On the occasion of the one-day strike, the Dáil acted probably better than it normally does. Members were not able to go to the Whips office and check where they were on the list of speakers. They had to come into the Dáil Chamber and nearly take their chances as to when they would be called. An approach such as that should be taken where Members who are interested in a subject would come into the Chamber and make their intervention. In most cases five to ten minutes is more than adequate for anybody to make his or her point. It would also be worthwhile if Ministers were in a position to give way. They would not have to give way all the time but it would make for a much more interactive approach to debate. I strongly hold that view and believe it would facilitate the progressing of debates much more quickly. This happens during the taking of Private Notice questions and similar matters. Such provision could be achieved without amending Standing Orders and simply by agreement across all parties that this is the way we ought to proceed.

The issue of questions being addressed for Members when the Dáil is not sitting should be considered. A small number of urgent questions, perhaps five to ten per week, during times when the Dáil is not sitting could be allowed. If that were to happen, I do not believe it would place undue strain on the resources of Departments or of the Houses.

A further issue that has proven to be difficult to resolve is that of the addressing the business of bodies such as the NRA, the HSE and, what are colloquially called quangos, which is proving intractable. Many Members want those bodies to be made more accountable to the Dáil. I have tried to elicit some advice from the Attorney General on the matter. I have not concluded my discussions on how we might address that issue, but there are members of the committee who believe that an omnibus item of legislation could be introduced by the Dáil which would allow questions to be addressed to Ministers about those bodies. The other view is that amendments would have to be made to each of the founding items of legislation on a case by case basis. It is not a case of one size fits all. There are people here who are more skilled in the legal area than I am who might expand on how they consider this issue might be addressed. It is one that will be quite difficult to address.

As to whether we can progress matters, I would like to think that we would get all-party agreement to a package of proposals. A danger in that is that we will opt for the lowest common denominator of proposals and, consequently, for very little change. It may be that we would have to agree to address some of the bigger issues at another point. The issue of the quangos, for want of a better word, may be one of those and it could be a breaking point in terms of agreement to a package of proposals. It would be a pity if the other issues, on which there is broad agreement on the manner in which to proceed with them, were not taken on board. The issue of quangos might be used to delay the long overdue reform in terms of the efficiency of the work of the Dáil.

There are other small matters, some of which are pertinent and some of which are not, for example, the idea of having a light system in front of the Ceann Comhairle's chair to indicate that a speaker has a few minutes remaining of their allocated time to make his or her contribution. I have seen such a system in place in other Parliaments, particularly in Europe. A variation of such a system would be worth introducing. If we are not prepared as parliamentarians to address fairly basic reforms in the way we conduct our day to day business, I believe we will be looked upon rather cynically by citizens.

Is there a role for a Government backbencher? The Minister of State did not allude to the role of a Government backbencher.

I will call the Deputy shortly. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe indicated he wished to speak and he will be followed by Deputy Kennedy, Senator Alex White and Deputy Naughten.

It is timely that we are having this discussion with the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey, and Deputy Stanton, as representatives of the two main parties. I gather they are in discussion with representatives of the other parties with a view to producing a package of proposals. I find some of the proposals attractive. In fact, the menu is comprehensive, but I have one problem with it — I have seen that menu under discussion for the past 20 years. The Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey, mentions that unless change takes place we will be looked upon cynically by the people. Let us be blunt about it, however — we are being looked upon cynically by the people now, and with justification. My comments are not directed at the two representatives here who are genuinely trying to do something about the situation, but I feel strongly that the political will is not there to make the changes.

Article 28 of the Constitution states that the Executive is to be responsible to the Dáil, but is it responsible to, or answerable to, the Dáil? It is not. Every effort is made to stymie that provision of the Constitution which, if honoured in the letter, is certainly not honoured in the spirit. There are many who would suggest that at this stage the Dáil is merely a rubber stamp for the Executive. That is possibly overstating it, but it is only a slight overstatement because the Government of the day controls the Dáil and tries to ensure that its will prevails with the minimum fuss or debate.

Part of the problem is that, apart from a couple of years, the same party has been in Government for the past 20 years. It is a natural tendency for a party in Government gradually to reach the stage whereby it makes decisions and the Dáil is there merely as an inconvenience as certain things have to be put through the Lower House. "Putting them through the Dáil" is the attitude. Parliamentary democracy is withering on the vine and there are huge consequences as a result, some of which were touched upon by the Ombudsman yesterday. It is a fair point to ask whether the desperate problems now confronting the country could have been addressed far earlier had there been genuine and active debate on the issues of the day in the Dáil at the time.

The Dáil's Standing Orders seem designed, and are certainly interpreted as far as possible, to ensure that Ministers are protected from the embarrassment of showing that they do not know everything about everything. In other parliaments the attitude is that Ministers are not expected to know about everything but they are expected to find out, if so required. That does not happen here.

As regards quangos such as FÁS, the NRA and the HSE, legislation was specifically put through and designed to ensure that there would be no parliamentary scrutiny of the activities of those bodies. How democratic is that? The Minister of State raised a legitimate point about how best to change that. If there is a political will to change it, it can be changed. It does not really matter whether there is to be one Act or a series of amendments to the existing legislation dealing with various quangos, but if there is the political will to change it, it can be done without constitutional change, purely through legislative amendments to undo the damage that has already been done.

I am heartened that the two main representatives have come before the committee, and by the fact that both of them have a genuine appreciation of the need for change. Their proposals are not dissimilar and they are heading in the right direction. My message is for them to press on. I hope in its forthcoming report this committee will strongly endorse the need for the changes they have outlined. Whether it is done incrementally or otherwise is a practical issue. If it is easier to do so incrementally, it should be done thus, but get the damn thing done. If the entire package cannot be agreed or put into operation straight away, it is understandable to do it on a phased basis. It is easier to change a standing order, for example, than to change legislation. If it is part of the package, however, let us do it in time.

The issues they are dealing with are enormously important from the viewpoint of our parliamentary democracy. It is essential to have a political will to deal with the kind of issues that the delegates have raised here. In default of that political will, there will not be changes — as there have not been for years and years. If those changes do not come about, the people who are so cynical today will become increasingly cynical with the consequences that can accrue from a total disconnect by the public from the parliamentary system.

I agree with what Deputy Stanton said about amending the way we operate before we start reviewing how people elect us. The non-scripted issue is something we should proceed with. It is boring for everyone if Members go into the Chamber and read a script for 20 minutes, and the public do not buy into it. I subscribe to the view that a maximum of ten minutes should apply. In that way, we would get through far more business if spokespersons did not have to contribute for 20 minutes, continuing for hours and repeating the same points ad nauseam, depending on whether they are Government or Opposition Members.

On amending Standing Order 32, perhaps we could come up with a mechanism to implement that only if five Members sign a request to do so. Having individual Members in the Chamber every morning discussing local potholes under Standing Order 32 demeans the Dáil. The reaction I get from people watching "Oireachtas Report" is that it does not make us look like a national parliament.

The earlier starting time would be worthwhile and more productive in terms of getting business done.

Like the Chairman I have chaired sittings involving oral questions; it is pretty boring to say the least of it and it achieves nothing. The Member reads out his or her question, and receives a scripted response. It does not achieve anything other than a Member being able to go back to his or her constituents and say something.

That is the Adjournment debate.

I am sorry. It is the Adjournment, yes. Reform of the Adjournment debate and of oral questions should demand that a minimum number of people be present in the Chamber. In addition, only those in the Chamber should be able to raise questions. At 10.30 p.m. there may be no one in the Chamber, apart from the Chairperson, one Opposition Member and a Minister or Minister of State responding. It does not achieve anything. If we are to get the public to believe in what we are doing, we need to make that more productive and interesting.

Any law that would oblige the HSE, NRA and other bodies to give an answer to a Minister would be welcome.

It is often disconcerting for Government backbenchers that they cannot question their own Ministers on Bills. People may say that such matters can be raised in certain ways. Irrespective of who may be in power, however, we must create some role for backbenchers other than just being available for voting purposes whenever necessary. If we are to make parliament relevant, Government backbenchers — who have ideas and suggestions as good as the Opposition's — should be given some forum in which to express them. One way of achieving that might be by introducing Bills into a committee system first. At the moment, however, if Government backbenchers have ideas that might be contrary to the Minister's or their own party position, they will not be in good odour if such ideas are expressed.

Deputy Kennedy is a rebel Deputy.

That group is decreasing in size.

It is a bad time to be a rebel.

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, and Deputy Stanton for their profound and well thought out presentations. As we are all aware, our country is in a desperate situation. As a result, many sacred cows are being exposed and there is an intense questioning of the procedures of the Oireachtas. That is timely, as manifested by today's meeting.

I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe in that there is an increasing disconnect between the members of the public and what is occurring in the Oireachtas. This is dangerous for our democracy at a time of potential social unrest. I will leave it to members of the Opposition to put their case, but I have had the honour of serving as a Minister of State in the current Government and I am now a backbencher. I have a fundamental belief, namely, that all 166 Members of the Dáil have the same electoral validity. We have all been elected according to the Constitution and, as such, we should all be able to participate equally in the workings of the Dáil. I will not mention the Seanad because I have no experience of it. Unfortunately, backbenchers, certainly on the Government side as Deputy Kennedy outlined and possibly on the Opposition side as well, are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Last August, I wrote an article in The Irish Times and much of what I wrote then has been proposed by the Minister of State and Deputy Stanton. I knew this committee meeting was scheduled when, last week, I happened to meet a couple of constituents who represented a broad base — factory workers, public sector workers and business people. Invariably, they all expressed significant surprise at the hour at which we start our business. Many of the factory workers start at 8 a.m. Everyone in business or the public sector was at work by 9 a.m. at least. We start work at 10.30 a.m. It is crazy. I agree with the two speakers that we need to start much earlier because we need to re-establish our credentials with members of the public.

I also agree with the concept of a commencement debate. For most Members of Dáil Éireann, raising an issue of topical interest is difficult. The format of the commencement debate may vary. I understand that Ministers being presented with topical, "hot" issues to which they must issue a response that reflects Government thinking, would be difficult. I would have no problem with the Minister in question reverting to the House during the day or the next morning with the official Government line. Through this facility, Members could raise issues they believe to be important for five minutes each starting at 9 a.m. and running until 10 a.m.

I have raised two matters under Standing Order 32. One was not only of national importance, but also international importance. Before entering the House that morning, I listened to national radio and watched national television and the BBC, ITV, CNN and Sky. Each station was discussing one issue only, which was also the headline on three national papers, namely, swine flu. When I attempted to raise the matter in the Dáil, it was not felt to be of importance to our Parliament. It was discussed the next day, but why was the discussion not allowed then? I do not mean this as a criticism of the Ceann Comhairle, who is bound by the regulations. There must be a change and I take on board Deputy Stanton's remarks to the effect that the system has been abused, as the Standing Order is not intended for a discussion on potholes, although that is not to diminish the pothole situation.

The Second Stage debate is a farce. We have all gone through those 20 minutes. In a serious analysis of what has been discussed in those 20 minutes, I would bet my last penny that 99% of it has no relevance to the Bill in question. It is an opportunity for people to talk about anything they like. I agree that the time should be curtailed to five minutes. If I may use a medical analogy, politicians suffer from a disease I call verbal diarrhoea. It is of no benefit to anyone, it causes listeners intense distress and it needs to be stopped. This would allow for much more time to get on with relevant matters in the Chamber. Some Ministers listen to what is stated on Second Stage and incorporate it into amendments on Committee Stage. Unfortunately, the Members speaking during Second Stage could easily make the relevant points in five or, at most, ten minutes. This would allow much more time for the debate to be constructive.

I welcome our guests' comments. I have one question for them, as they are on the same committee. What is occurring in terms of Dáil reform? Where are we at? If we can bring it forward as a result of this committee's deliberations and make it occur now instead of in one, two or three years' time, our guests' committee will have done the country a great justice.

Perhaps we need a level of intellectual roughage to deal with theverbal diarrhoea.

Will the Senator supply it?

I take a slight issue with Deputy Stanton's comments, although I agree with 95% or more of what he stated. I do not see the process of examining the voting system as being exclusive or something that should follow the reform of the operations of either House of the Oireachtas. They are parallel processes. One reason our committee is examining the voting process is the significant lack of engagement with the general public, which expresses itself in terms of turnouts and cynicism towards the political system. However we re-arrange business in the Houses, these problems will persist. There is a need to engage in this process.

Something I have not heard from either speaker is what I would have seen as an essential and easily attained reform of the business of these Houses. We are currently in a committee meeting, the Seanad is on Committee Stage of a Bill and the Dáil is in Question Time but will shortly be moving on to some form of legislation. At any given time, there is the opportunity of votes being called in either House, thereby interrupting the work of this and other committees. Other legislatures get around this problem by having a set committee week. Organising the business of both Houses to give full and proper consideration to committee and plenary work and keeping them separate would be easy.

Regarding the other reforms that have been mentioned, I do not disagree with much of what has been stated, particularly in respect of Question Time. I might extend today's remit, since we are discussing Dáil reform. There are some constitutional barriers, but a slight Seanad reform would be the introduction of written questions from Senators to members of the Government. There is no capacity for oral questions other than through Adjournment debates. Written questions would provide more accountability and allow for better engagement with a second House of the Oireachtas.

Other than those suggestions, for the Houses to be real, not only must they meet earlier, they must adopt family friendly hours. We should discourage the holding of debates or the opening of either House beyond 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. on any evening. The idea of regularly finishing at 9.30 p.m. or 10.30 p.m. or, occasionally, going past midnight does not encourage large numbers of people to aspire to be part of these Houses or to contribute to their workings.

The types of reform we must discuss are those that engage people in their everyday lives. Like Deputy O'Keeffe, I am frustrated that, while these seem obvious and logical and have been discussed heavily, the only missing element is the political will to implement some of them easily.

Senator Boyle's final point is correct. Like anyone else, I accept that it takes time for change to occur, particularly where there are complexities involved. However, it is unbelievable how little change has occurred in the context of reform of the Oireachtas in recent decades. We might as well face the fact that little or no change has taken place. Deputies Kennedy and Devins, who represent the Government side, spoke as compellingly as anyone on the Opposition side about the need for change. If everyone is discussing change and proclaiming themselves to be in favour of it, why has it not happened?

I could understand it if only a fraction of the change that is necessary had occurred. However, neither I nor the people can understand why nothing has happened. As Deputy Jim O'Keeffe stated earlier, until it is made a central political imperative of the Taoiseach and the Government of the day, nothing will change. I do not intend any criticism of the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, in this regard. I have heard him comment on this matter in the past and I appreciate his bona fides in respect of it. There is no doubt that if the Taoiseach and the other members of the Cabinet are not in agreement that urgent change is required in respect of the Oireachtas and how it does its business, then such change will not occur. It will become a nuts-and-bolts issue and will be discussed by various committees, but nothing will happen.

It is amazing to hear Deputy Devins, who recently served as a Minister of State, speak so strongly about this matter. It is as if there are two different worlds that exist side by side. One of these worlds is inhabited by the small number of people with all the power and the ability to take action, while the other is occupied by everyone else, namely, those who want change. It is almost Kafkaesque and it is certainly bizarre. We need an explanation — which, to date, has not been forthcoming.

Without trying to ignite an overtly political row on the subject, I must state that the most compelling example of the refusal of the Government to allow its position in respect of the conduct of public business in the Oireachtas to be even marginally weakened is that which relates to the banks. The failure to engage in any form of serious public scrutiny of what occurred with the banks has been lamentable. The argument against engaging in such scrutiny is that the Opposition is seeking public executions, and so on.

In the past the Chairman fought hard to ensure that certain issues which, as a result of public controversies, were referred to committees of the House continued to be investigated by those committees. I do not believe there is a constitutional bar on the Oireachtas or any of its committees examining the policy decisions and choices made and the level of regulation — and level of scrutiny relating thereto — that applied in respect of the banking system, particularly in view of the fact that the massive economic crisis we are experiencing is due, in some considerable part, to the failure of the banks. If the Oireachtas cannot perform at that level, then it is, in the eyes of the public and by definition, irrelevant. The Houses must be able to deliver some form of public scrutiny in respect of matters of this nature. If we want proof of the failure to bring about change in the Oireachtas, then it is evident in the way the banking issue has been dealt with.

I have been a Member of the Houses for a relatively short period. I agree with what Deputies Stanton and others said regarding the potential of committees such as that of which we are members. I have been a member of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children for the past two and a half years. There were times when my experience there was somewhat dispiriting. However, it was a very interesting process in the context of people engaging with each other in respect of a complex issue. Progress was slow but people listened to each other. Members also felt free to interrupt each other in mid-flight and state that what they were saying could not be right and then outline alternatives. That is the dynamic of debating which we all, as human beings, understand. There were no set-piece speeches and the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children made progress that was based on people being willing to engage in debate and, on occasion, change their minds. Imagine that. People actually changed their views in respect of positions they previously held.

The joint committee to which I refer is an example of what the Oireachtas can do. Government and Opposition Deputies and Senators contributed in like manner and with equal enthusiasm and commitment to the work of that committee. The progress made by the committee was not, by any means, concentrated on the efforts of one or two individuals.

A great deal of what should happen in the Parliament has been contracted out to tribunals and those involved in the social partnership process. The late Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton once stated that if the right questions had been asked in the Dáil there would never have been a need for a beef tribunal. How many tribunals have there been in the interim?

The late Mr. Justice Hamilton stated that if questions had been answered in the Dáil in the way they were answered before the beef tribunal, then there would have been no need for that tribunal.

I thank the Chairman for correcting me. However, the point stands. If Members of the Oireachtas were in a position to take the lead in respect of public scrutiny, then we would not need to literally contract out the work.

Members referred to the use of scripts, interruptions, and so on. Colleagues' comments in this regard are absolutely correct. A script, regardless of whether it is long or short or whether it is delivered in the Dáil or Seanad, completely drags down the dynamic of a debate. The authorities in RTE are correct in stating that no one wants to watch someone, with his or her head down, reading from a script. Those one would hope would respond to what someone who is delivering a script is saying will not really have the opportunity to do so in a meaningful way.

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, and Deputy Stanton for their presentations. I return to Senator Alex White's original point that the major difficulty lies in trying to convince Ministers that change is required. Government and Opposition backbenchers want to see change. The Minister of State is currently in the difficult position of trying to convince the Government that change is required. It would not matter if the Government changed tomorrow, the same issues would still arise.

I apologise for the fact that I have been obliged to leave the room intermittently. The reason for this is that the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, of which I am also a member, is meeting in another room at present.

The Minister of State indicated that there is agreement in respect of many of these issues, with the exception of that relating to quangos. If that is the case, we should plough ahead with reform and deal with the quangos separately. There is no doubt but that we must, as an Oireachtas, deal with the issue of the quangos. The reported comments of the Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, in respect of the Oireachtas as an institution are damning. We would not be in the mess in which we find ourselves in respect of FÁS and the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, if there was proper accountability and if parliamentary questions — even in a limited form — were answered properly.

I accept the points made in respect of Standing Order 32 in the Dáil. I was one of the few Members who had a matter accepted under this mechanism order — it was then known as Standing Order 31 — several years ago. One interesting aspect of the Order of Business is that if one inquires with regard to primary legislation, one receives a pretty pathetic answer from the Government. If one inquires about secondary legislation — which is usually more interesting — one tends to receive a quite substantial response from either the relevant Minister or the Taoiseach on the following day or else one receives a written and far more detailed response than one would obtain on the Order of Business. Consideration should be given to that aspect of the matter. The reason so much of our work is focused on local politics is the lack of power we have in Parliament. The situation has worsened. Deputy Stanton who entered the Dáil on the same day as myself probably feels the same way. For example, even in the context of the Government accepting amendments, there is less opportunity for that than there was ten or 12 years ago.

If more powers were given to Oireachtas Members, there would be more focus on what is happening nationally rather than locally. The practical problem is backbench Government Members are purely lobby fodder to pass legislation. On foot of that, to differentiate themselves from their party colleagues in the constituency, they have to be better at doing the local constituency work. That consequently puts pressure on Opposition Members in the constituency who may be focused on bringing legislation through the House and shadowing a Minster because they have to shadow the local backbench Deputy as well. It is a never-ending spiral. If we can bring more of the focus back on to the Dáil and the committees and more powers are given to Members, that will provide the counterbalance required.

I refer to the Minister of State's comments on reducing the length of speaking slots. I disagree because long before my time the speaking slots were longer than they are today. Most Bills are complex but if a Member is genuinely interested in a Bill, he or she needs time to tease out the issues on Second Stage because Committee Stage very much concerns the Opposition spokespersons and the Minister. There is more opportunity in the Seanad to tease out legislation than in the committee system. The main opportunity for many Members interested in a specific Bill is to contribute on Second Stage. With regard to the criticism made, the last person I recall stopping a Member in flight regarding relevance was the former Deputy, Dessie O'Malley. He stopped a Government Member and questioned the relevance of his contribution to the legislation being discussed.

That Member happened to be me.

It could well have been.

It was on the canals Bill and I was very expert on canals.

There is an onus on the Chair to ensure the debate is focused on the Bill before the House. Naturally, if Members are given a wide berth, they will rant and rave about everything but if they know the Chair will question the relevance of their contribution to legislation, they will make their contribution relevant. That issue needs to be examined.

I have often looked back through my contributions on legislation where I questioned issues and the Minister failed to respond to them. On some occasions he or she may have had limited time to respond but he or she should respond to the issues raised on Second Stage. If the Minister only has ten minutes to respond, he or she should respond in writing subsequently to outline the position. The reason officials are in the bullpen is it provide the Minister with advice on responses.

I have just come from a meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights where we discussed the participation of women in politics, which is also being examined by this committee. Senator Boyle referred to family friendly hours. It is important we remember that family friendly hours are defined by members living in the vicinity of Leinster House. Family friendly hours for a rural Member require a completely different definition because currently we now have to be here three days a week and we have the opportunity to be with our families any other day. That opportunity will not arise for us if there is a five-day sitting week. People need to be conscious of that because even in the context the participation of women of politics, they need to have the opportunity to see their children the same as everyone else. A balance needs to be struck on that.

I am shortly due in the Seanad to debate a motion. I have found this exchange worthwhile. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe because of his wisdom and time served as a Member always has something profound to say but it is also simple. We have seen all this before. Deputies Naughten, Stanton and I are into our 14th year as Members of this House and it is sometimes dispiriting to find that even with the best will in the world the best of ideas are not implemented. I often wonder why that is. It is partly to do with the disparate nature of our work. Even today, Members are slipping in and out of meetings because they are stretched. One tries to balance committee work, work on behalf of constituents and to discharge one's responsibilities in holding the Government to account.

We have never clarified the extent to which we should separate the role of Parliament from that of the Government. Deputy Kennedy asked about the role of the backbencher. The backbencher is a Member of Parliament who is not a member of the Government and they are discrete and different roles but we do not always recognise that. To an extent, it is up to all of us to carve out our own unique identity in whatever role we have. Government backbenchers are not too backward in coming forward when they want to make a point but sometimes we are inclined to discourage all backbenchers from having their views heard and they are often more respected when they do. I have witnessed some Ministers encourage Government backbenchers to table parliamentary questions and to intervene in debates. A number of Ministers were good at that in their time. We need to work a good deal more on that.

With regard to the committee system, we need to examine the number of committees and the work delegated to them. It does not do the system good when Members refer during a plenary session to the "dungeons" when something is referred to a committee. I agree with Senator White. I was a member of committees dealing with European affairs when I first entered the House and I found the most satisfying work I did was in committee rooms here and in Kildare House. We greatly underestimate the value of the work done by committees. I do not criticise the media for their lack of coverage of some of the proceedings because no matter what organ of the media is present, it will not find space for everything. We should be satisfied that what we are doing is valid and worthwhile. If it is worthwhile and if it stands up to our scrutiny that would probably be good enough for us. I am a strong believer in the committee system and I agree it can be enhanced. The committees should not be set in stone in terms of number or remit. We should be brave enough to be able to change them and, from time to time, amalgamate them. For example, the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children is time-limited and this is a very good approach, as was the sub-committee on the Lisbon treaty, another good example of a committee able to undertake its work and carry out its functions extremely well.

On the questions posed by Deputy Naughten and others as to whether we should proceed with what can be implemented, this has value but there is a danger we might do this in baby steps. I would prefer if we could get a significant package of reform of the procedures of the Dáil when we are doing it rather than the piecemeal reform advocated by some people. I do not agree with the idea that something would be better than nothing.

We need to engage with the public. As days go by I almost despair that we will alienate the people even further. We should be honoured that the national broadcaster devotes live broadcasting time on Wednesday mornings to our work and very often we do not always do ourselves a great service in the way we carry out our business or the way we portray ourselves. The half an hour given to our work is our opportunity to put across to citizens what we are doing on their behalf. We are their servants, after all, and if we do not bear that in mind, and if we do not understand that is our function, we should not be here. It is not a time for theatrics or play-acting or dramatics. We should be deadly serious.

I do not altogether agree with people, including Senator Alex White, who say we do not seriously engage with work. The issues to do with NAMA and those leading up to its establishment were teased out in very great detail in the Dáil — I am not as conversant with how it was dealt with in the Seanad. There was detailed examination of the financial crisis and other issues. I have read the record of the House covering recent years. This Government has been very willing to accept proposals and suggestions from the Opposition to address issues quickly, sometimes, admittedly, under pressure, but that is not a hanging offence. There is hardly a week goes by now that this is not the case. The follow-through is something I am concerned about quite often. We can become very exercised about an issue of the day and when it disappears off either "Morning Ireland" or "Liveline" or somewhere else, it is no longer an issue. It is a pity that our agenda is, to a great extent, dictated by what is portrayed in the print or other media. We should be very clear that we have our own agenda here. We can be informed, certainly, by what is happening in other areas of analysis but we have a distinct and discrete role and we should not be afraid to portray it.

It is possible and I would not be here if I did not believe that it was achievable, to bring in a good amount of reform quickly. Deputy Stanton will be sceptical when he hears me say this again but I would hate to think we would go into another parliamentary year without being prepared to grasp the nettle on an all-party basis. I take the criticism that it is for the Government to make that bold move but it is also incumbent on all parties in the House to be part of an effort to make us more relevant and from my point of view, ensure that the Government is held to account and that the programme of legislation proposed by the Government in the programme for Government, is carried out as best and as efficiently as possible.

I made this following point at a Whips' meeting before I came here. Everybody should be invited to participate at an early date in a seminar on the procedures of the House. I hate having to say this but I honestly believe that a great number of us simply do not understand the procedures, the Standing Orders and so on, as well as we might. I know a number of people here are also Acting Chairmen from time to time in both Houses and we all find that there is less than a deep understanding of the procedures and Standing Orders of the House and of the salient rulings of the Chair. We could usefully spend a couple of half days becoming more deeply informed about that area of our activity.

My understanding of the work of this committee on electoral reform is that it is to look at ways of freeing up Deputies from constituency work that is perhaps more proper for councillors, the local authority members, in many cases. Because the local authority system in Ireland is so weak and because members of local authorities have no authority to make any decisions, unlike in other countries in the US and Europe which have mayoral systems where a mayor has executive authority to make decisions, the citizen thinks a TD or Senator is higher up in the hierarchy and that they will get things done. As it happens, TDs are no longer members of local authorities and the city or county councillor is probably closer to the action and is maybe in a better position to assist with the issue. Nevertheless, TDs have to respond to these issues, no matter what they are. Perhaps we should look at the powers and structures of local authorities as well before we start talking about electoral reform. If we change the electoral system without changing the local authority system, people will still think that the county councillor cannot do anything for them and they will go to the TD as he or she is higher up in the chain and he or she will get something done.

I refer to what the Ombudsman said yesterday. She said:

For all practical purposes, and I very much regret having to say this so bluntly, Parliament in Ireland has become side-lined and is no longer in a position to hold the Executive to account. With the exception of the election of a Taoiseach, almost all decisions of importance are taken by the Executive and are rubber-stamped by Parliament.

The Taoiseach of the day controls the Executive from what I can see and the Executive controls the Parliament. In effect, one person controls the whole show and can decide what happens and what does not happen and that includes Dáil reform. I would lay the whole responsibility for lack of Dáil reform at the feet of the Taoiseach of the day. If the Taoiseach wants it to happen, it will happen and it he does not want it to happen, it will not happen.

This is the Joint Committee on the Constitution. If what the Ombudsman said yesterday is true and the Parliament is no longer in a position to hold the Executive to account, where stands Article 28.4.10 “The Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann.”? A body of work which this committee could usefully undertake is whether that very important article is being flouted by the way the Houses operate. The Constitution is clear on this point. If it is the case that the Government is no longer responsible to Dáil Éireann but controls the Dáil in every way — bearing in mind that one person controls the Government — were are in a pseudo-dictatorship because of the weakness of——

That is a good point. I think we all agree——

No matter what Government is in power. It does not matter what party is in power as the same thing applies.

The committee is to review the Constitution and we are all agreed that Article 28.4.10 is correct and right and proper.

Yes, but is it being implemented? Is it being followed?

That is not our department.

Speakers referred to longer sittings. I would be a little bit wary of longer sittings if it is more of the same. If we have longer days and more sitting days, it will be more of the same and there will be no change. We will still read scripts at each other across empty Chambers. Reform must strike a more modern balance between adversarial and consensual aspects of democracy and we need to examine this. There should be rolling reform as an ongoing process. Let us do what we can to ensure the process rolls on. Parliament must be fit for purpose for the 21st century. The Oireachtas, however, continues to operate using 19th century Standing Orders we inherited from the British. It is unbelievable that the United Kingdom has moved on and we have not yet done so.

I am concerned that reform will be proposed as a single package. As the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, stated in the Dáil the other day, packages always contain a landmine or grenade to which somebody will object. Let us do what we can to move the process on. We should start by having Adjournment debates in the morning and make different changes thereafter.

A new bargain is needed to define a new relationship between Parliament, the Government and citizens. Everybody must be included in this bargain. I raised previously the idea of having a forum at which members of the media, academics, parliamentarians and citizens would express their views on the type of Parliament we need for the 21st century.

The Whip system should also be examined. One could, in the context of constitutional reform, ask whether it is correct or constitutional that a Government Deputy who votes against the Government is punished and has the party Whip removed.

The issue of quangos has been raised repeatedly. I draw attention to the Freedom of Information Act which has many bodies under its remit. It may be worthwhile for experts to examine this issue.

I referred to how other parliaments deal with legislation, the division of power as between the executive and legislature and the powers and role of the speaker. We should also examine these issues.

As to the current position vis-à-vis Dáil reform, ideas have been put forward and we await the response of the Government on which proposals it accepts and which it rejects.

Were recommendations made?

Yes, the issues we discussed are on the table and we are waiting for the Cabinet to state its position on our recommendations. The process appears to be stalled. The joint committee is open to discussion and debate. If there is agreement that quangos need to be addressed, which I believe to be the case, let us establish a mechanism to do so and press ahead with other reforms in the meantime.

I agree that many decisions were taken in the social partnership process. Given her important constitutional position, we should take notice when the Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, describes Parliament as a rubber stamp for the Government.

The Minister of State indicated that issues arise every day.

Where does the Constitution refer to the Ombudsman?

I apologise, I should have referred to her important statutory rather than constitutional position.

We are very pernickety in this committee.

I see that. I was checking whether members were listening. Parliament is experiencing a crisis almost every week. If the Houses conducted their business properly, many of the recent problems would not have arisen. If we had accountability, people would know they were being scrutinised and problems would be nipped in the bud. It is a chicken and egg scenario. Even with regard to the economic mess in which the State finds itself, if the Houses had been working properly——

We are discussing Dáil reform and the Constitution. We will leave the economic mess to other committees.

I am making a serious point that the country is in a serious economic position. If the Houses were able to operate as they should, perhaps many of the problems would have been tested and teased out in a better way earlier.

I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to appear before it. I hope our discussion will kick-start the badly needed reform of the Oireachtas.

I thank Deputy Stanton and the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey, for sharing their knowledge and expertise and acting as a catalyst for an excellent debate which will, I hope, benefit the entire system.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.25 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 24 March 2010.
Barr
Roinn